Dual Federalist System

McCulloch vs Maryland Summary In case of McCulloch vs Maryland is a landmark case that questioned the extent of federal government 's separation of power from state government. A problem arose when the Second Bank of America was established. With the War of 1812 and it’s financial suffering in the past, the government sought to create a bank with the purpose of securing the ability to fund future wars and financial endeavors. Many states were disappointed with this new organization, one of them being Maryland.

In regards to Maryland's argument of state sovereignty, Chief Justice Marshall argued that the Constitution is "an instrument of the people". Although, it was ratified by the state conventions it is for the people, not the states. Lastly, Marshall stated that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy", which was a direct attack to the federal government. There were no concurrent opinions written for this

During the United States history, there have been events that have impacted the course and development of politics, becoming part of what is currently, and the McCulloch v. Maryland case has been one of the most influential events in the economic area. In addition, I believe that the courage that McCulloch had to refuse to pay the taxes imposed by Maryland was an elemental key part to continue with the processes of the growth of the United States National Bank and the regulation of the coin produced by the state banks; bringing at the end a financial balance. Furthermore, in a deeper insight, it promoted the analysis of the power of the Congress and the Constitution, because at the beginning the Constitution was taken as a literal explanation

In the Articles of confederation congress was not allowed to tax only states. State legislatures had to figure out a way to come up with the money, and sometimes the states wouldn’t get all the money needed. Without the money from the states meant that congress wouldn’t

The ruling resulted in the leverage that federal law presides over state

The states can contest the federal government rules and regulations in the federal judiciary branch. The states have contested federal laws, incidence of them blocking federal authorities from enforcing federal laws and cases involving individuals who break federal laws, but not state law (Levy, 2013). The ability of states to challenge federal laws that they feel are unconstitutional is part of our system of democracy. These challenges have led to parts of a law or the full law to be unconstitutional and overturned by the

A lesson that would be stated repeatedly throughout his verdicts but never truly understood by citizens until the Civil War is that the states are subservient to the federal government, or that state law trumps federal law. For example in McCulloch vs. Maryland, where Maryland wanted to tax the building of a new national bank, where Maryland lost the case, as federal legislature supersedes state legislature. In this case, the legislation for a new bank trumped taxation of it. Furthermore, a more specific case of this issue is in the earlier case of Fletcher v. Peck, where Marshall declared the state law revoking the corrupt sale of land by bribed politicians was unconstitutional as the sale was good at the time of the land being sold, thus it is unconstitutional to revoke the sale of what was already sold. As true with both, it is shown that state government is weaker than federal government to ensure that a strong nation is run as one, rather than being pulled from each end by state governments.

In both the McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden cases, John Marshall asserted the power of judicial review, and legitimatized the Supreme Court within the national government. The Marshall Court, over the span of thirty years, managed to influence the life of every American by aiding in the development of the judicial branch and establishing a boundary between the state and national government. John Marshall’s Supreme Court cases shaped how the government is organized today. He strongly believed in Federalism, and that the national government should be sovereign, rather than the states. The Supreme Court under John

The Supreme Court case McCulloch v Maryland originally originated in Maryland when the Maryland legislature decided to levy a tax on all branches of the banks. It was aimed to destroy the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States. James McCulloch was a cashier at the Baltimore branch. He was issuing bank notes without complying with the Maryland law. Maryland had sued McCulloch for refusing to pay the taxes under the Maryland statute.

There are many Constitutions in the U.S., all the state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution. I will be writing about both the Maryland and U.S. Constitution, which have many differences and similarities. This essay is about the three similarities and differences of the Maryland and U.S. Constitution that I found. The three differences and similarities are the state constitution is reserved for state government, whereas the U.S. Constitution is reserved for the national government, “They both embody the principles of representative democratic government”, and they are different in length and structure.

Article VI of the Constitution contains the Supremacy Clause, which states that federal law is supreme to state law. The Supremacy Clause was added to the Constitution to give the federal government power over the states. Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government

The States are in charge of different things but whatever they decide only applies to the one state they represent. Like the laws they make only apply to the people in the state, but the laws they make can control property laws, estate and inheritance laws, commerce laws, banking and credit laws, corporate laws, insurance laws, family laws, morality laws, public health laws, education laws, general penal laws, eminent domain laws, land-use laws, water and mineral laws, criminal procedure laws, electoral and political party laws, local government laws, civil service laws, occupations and professions laws. The States also control licensing people for driving, and for jobs. Local governments and law enforcement are also under state control.

These authorities that the national government should have, were all up to the states to decide under the Articles. With the taking away some of the states rights in the Constitution, Anti-federalists feared that this would leave the states too weak, resulting in more problems. Under the new Constitution, many powers that were now in the government 's hands are: the power to levy and collect taxes, the power to regulate interstate commerce, the government set up a national court system consisting of district, circuit, and a supreme court, the government could enforce laws, there was now a house based on population, and a senate based on equal representation (two votes per state), to amend the Constitution, a ⅔ vote of Congress was needed, and a ¾ vote of the states were needed, and a majority rule was needed to pass bills. These new powers and abilities of the national government helped to create a strong, new

The Articles of the Confederation was the first government constitution that the United States used, and, although there were strength like the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, there were major weaknesses of the Articles of the Confederation like the following: requiring 9 out of the 13 colonial votes from the representatives from different states to pass a law; having no executive and judicial branch; and the federal government being unable to impose tax revenue onto the states. Such flaws would eventually lead to the Constitution and the repeal of the articles, for the Constitution was a measure to fix the problems of the articles with a stronger government that allowed them to impose taxes and and implement new laws for a more effective government.

In this case, the state of Maryland was trying to place taxes on a federally created bank. There were two issues at stake. One was whether or not Maryland was even allowed to tax the bank and the court decided that due to national supremacy they were not. The other issue was whether or not the federal government was even allowed to create a federal bank. In the end, it was decided that due to the Necessary and Proper clause the federal government had implied powers not explicitly stated in the Constitution.